{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106917", "time_of_filling": "2025-04-16 10:38:14", "domain_names": [ "exness-scam.info" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Exness Holdings CY Limited" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Mr. Ngo Quoc Truong" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant is part of the Exness Group, a leading online multi-asset broker established in 2008, recognised for adherence to rigorous regulatory standards. The Complainant has demonstrated rapid growth across Africa, Latin America, and the MENA region, holding eight licenses from various authorities, including those in the UK and Cyprus.<\/p>\n

B<\/span><\/strong>. <\/span>Respondent<\/span><\/strong>'<\/span>s Factual Allegation<\/span>s<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has not submitted a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, leaving the Complainant's allegations unchallenged.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or concluded legal proceedings concerning the domain name <exness-scam.info> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.1 Preliminary Issue <\/strong>- <\/strong>Language of the Proceeding <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submitted the Complaint in English, while the registrar's verification response indicates that the registration agreement for the disputed domain name <exness-scam.info> is in Vietnamese. As per Procedural Order No. 1 (detailed in the section Procedural Factors (1), below), the Complainant provided a Vietnamese copy of the Complaint.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2 Substantive grounds<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2<\/strong>.1 The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <exness-scam.info> is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark EXNESS. The inclusion of the term 'scam' and the hyphen does not diminish this confusion. UDRP precedents consistently affirm that derogatory terms do not preclude a finding of confusing similarity (as outlined in section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ('the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0'). Thus, the disputed domain name meets this criterion. <\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2<\/strong>.2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for several reasons:<\/p>\n

• The Respondent has no affiliation with the Complainant and lacks consent to use the trade mark EXNESS;<\/p>\n

• The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n

• The Respondent's website disseminates defamatory content about the Complainant, damaging its reputation through baseless claims;<\/p>\n

• The Respondent's actions exceed acceptable criticism, as previous notifications failed to rectify the ongoing misinformation; and<\/p>\n

• The Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intent to defame the Complainant, negating any claim of bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2<\/strong>.3 The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith as defined by paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP Policy, particularly subparagraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). The Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the trade mark EXNESS, as evidenced by the disparaging content on the Respondent’s website, which includes defamatory allegations against the Complainant, such as unfounded claims of unfair termination of partner accounts, failures to pay commissions, and fraudulent business practices.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2<\/strong>.4 Relief sought<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to them.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. <\/strong>Respondent<\/strong>'<\/span>s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has not provided any substantive defence in this UDRP administrative proceeding.  <\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

The Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie<\/em> case regarding the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Panel refrains from ruling on this UDRP Policy ground as it is rendered immaterial due to the findings outlined below.<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

1<\/strong>. Language of the Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Panel issued Procedural Order No. 1 to invite comments on the language of the proceeding. The Complainant provided a Vietnamese copy of the Complaint, while the Respondent failed to respond.<\/p>\n

Per Rule 11 of the UDRP Rules, the Panel has discretion to determine the appropriate language. In applying the Writera test <\/em>from CAC Case No. 104144, the following factors were considered:<\/p>\n

(i) the only identifiable language in the disputed domain name string is English;<\/p>\n

(ii) the content of the Respondent's website is in English;<\/p>\n

(iii) the Complainant is incorporated in Cyprus; the Respondent appears to reside in Viet Nam, making English a neutral choice;<\/p>\n

(iv) the Respondent has shown no inclination to participate in this UDRP administrative proceeding;<\/p>\n

(v) the Panel has fulfilled its obligations under Rule 10 (c) of the UDRP Rules; and<\/p>\n

(vi) Considering the balance of convenience, the decision in English is warranted, enabling the Complainant to fully understand the case outcome without translation issues. Moreover, the decision would not disadvantage the Respondent.<\/p>\n

Based on these factors, the Panel has decided to issue its ruling in English.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. <\/span>Parties<\/strong>'<\/span> legal relationship<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Panel issued Procedural Order No.2 inviting the Complainant to submit a copy of the Partnership Agreement referenced in Annex 3 of the Complaint. The Complainant provided the requested document.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Miscellaneous<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Panel confirms that all procedural requirements under the UDRP have been met, with no grounds to prevent a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Yana Zhou" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-06-02 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant, Exness Holdings CY Limited, asserts rights to the following registered trade marks:<\/p>\n

• International trade mark registration no. 1133115, registered on 12 September 2012, designating, inter alia<\/em>, Viet Nam, for the word mark EXNESS, in class 36 of the Nice Classification;<\/p>\n

• US trade mark registration no. 4953350, registered on 10 May 2016, for the word mark EXNESS, in class 36 of the Nice Classification; and<\/p>\n

• EU trade mark registration no. 018616417, registered on 3 December 2021, for the word mark EXNESS, in classes 9, 36, and 42 of the Nice Classification.<\/p>\n

These trade marks will be collectively referred to as 'the Complainant's trade mark' or 'the trade mark EXNESS'.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 28 March 2025 and currently does not resolve to an active website. However, the Complainant has provided a screenshot of an operational website, herein referred to as 'the Respondent's website'.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "exness-scam.info": "REJECTED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }